Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Justinian2]

Shuttlt,

I don’t disagree with the basic premise that proof of innocence has yet surfaced in this case, but I still think that your analysis is flawed. I posted on the Duke lacrosse case as a specific response to a question from another commenter, but I still think that the examples are relevant. First, they show that a seemingly strong case can really be a house of cards. Second, they show that the media can have a harmful effect on a case. Third and perhaps most importantly, these cases show that police and prosecutors often fight tooth-and-nail for a convictions that are clearly flawed. Being innocent is nice, but it is not enough to get one out of prison in a timely manner. Two of the Norfolk Four apparently had unimpeachable alibis, yet after twelve years all they have is a conditional pardon and sex-offender status.

No one is proposing doing anything close to releasing people who might be the victims of a miscarriage of justice (your question is unserious). However, you do not discuss another scenario, one that I think is quite likely. The evidence against Knox and Sollecito was not (IMHO) enough to get near reasonable doubt, yet they were convicted. That is an injustice, even if no proof of innocence is ever forthcoming.

That reminds me of the old prosecutor joke: "We can convict anybody, the innocent just take longer".

I would go further and say that the longer the case is in court, the more likely it is that the defendant is innocent. The trouble is, an innocent defendant that is poor and under-represented is, likely to be convicted quickly and never get out.

The ONLY generalization that characterizes the innocent is, perhaps, that the legal proceedings go on for years.

I was going to say that an airtight alibi characterizes the innocent too, but look at the Godfather - he was in church at a christening when the executions he ordered took place.

Anybody without an alibi can be found guilty. A few of those with alibis can also be found guilty.

 

[Justinian2]

What is truth?

What is the truth?

I think one of the characteristics of truth is that it is something on which everybody agrees.

For example, the double DNA knife had LCN DNA. That is a truth. The bloody outline of a knife on the bed had a different outline than those of the double DNA knife. And so on. There are a few truths.

The prosecution's case relies on those things that are NOT truth, by my definition. Well, OK, MK is dead and was killed by knife wounds to the neck. AK lived in a nearby room. Those are truths. However, first world countries don't usually convict on those truths alone.

OK, the prosecution is trying to string together a few other little truths to prove other relevant truths (like the double DNA knife). This is what is making the trial continue.

 

[Justinian2]

The trial has begun. Amanda has spoken. The prosecution has tried to convert the speech to something upon which all don't agree (they've tried to make untruth).

 

[shuttlt]

I think "voluntary statement" is an Italian legal term.

It's hard to say for sure given the back and forth imperfact translations. I had thought "spontaneous declaration" was the transalation of what ever the Italian legal phrase is. STill this could be a legal term as well.

Apparently it's a standard loophole to get around the requirements of proper interrogation.

This relies on a reading where Mignini is using legal terminology, translated into English in an email to a non-lawyer, which is possible, but not the only interpretation. I don't quite see how one is to read "she deemed that she was making an unsolicited statement" in that analysis. I guess he is referring to the opening statement of her 5:45am statement.

Anyway, I also question whether what happened is "a standard loophole to get around the requirements of proper interrogation".

The idea that Amanda would insist on giving a statement doesn't correspond with the contents of that statement. It's so short, vague and devoid of details that it's unbelievable that

1. she authored it at all, considering how wordy and detailed her other recollections of the events are.​

If she is making things up as she goes, might that not be what one expects?

2. it took them all night to get it out of her if it was really voluntary.

What timings are you basing this on?

Her "voluntary statement" is basically the same as what she signed at 1:45.
I'm guessing here, but I think it's quite possible they called Mignini to say "mission accomplished", and he advised them "it's all good, but we need to make it into a voluntary statement to make it really usable".

Usable for what? If this really is a standard ploy then presumably somebody has loads of other cases where the ploy has worked?

 

[Justinian2]

The law is also a truth that is supposed to yeild truth. The law is something on which everybody can agree: People can agree: ya, that's what the law says. Unfortunately the law can be wrong, as the Nuremberg trials proved.

 

[Justinian2]

Secondly, the defense is supposed to be finding untruths in the prosecution's case. Not the other way around. That's what presumption of innocence means!

 

[Withnail1969]

It's hard to say for sure given the back and forth imperfact translations. I had thought "spontaneous declaration" was the transalation of what ever the Italian legal phrase is. STill this could be a legal term as well.


This relies on a reading where Mignini is using legal terminology, translated into English in an email to a non-lawyer, which is possible, but not the only interpretation. I don't quite see how one is to read "she deemed that she was making an unsolicited statement" in that analysis. I guess he is referring to the opening statement of her 5:45am statement.

Anyway, I also question whether what happened is "a standard loophole to get around the requirements of proper interrogation".


If she is making things up as she goes, might that not be what one expects?


What timings are you basing this on?


Usable for what? If this really is a standard ploy then presumably somebody has loads of other cases where the ploy has worked?

Shuttit, you seem like a decent guy. You must realise by now that the prosecution case is full of holes. The two leaders of the extremist guilter site have just run off. The tide of history is turning, my friend, and I would like you to be on our side. What do you say?

 

[shuttlt]

Ah, I forgot about the fondness you people have for pedantry.

There were no PRESS CAMERAS PRESENT (edit >> IN THE COURTROOM - gotta make sure I'm crystal for the sophists) during the proceedings.

Are we clear?

Well, this is the JREF, so pedantry kind of goes with the territory.

Even if cameras had been allowed in the courtroom I doubt the photographs appearing in newspapers would be representative. One would hardly be able to draw anything like an "all the time" kind of conclusion from them. There do seem to be quite a few stories about her smiling and laughing as she entered court though. What one can deduce from that I'm not desperately interested to know.

 

[Justinian2]

Well, this is the JREF, so pedantry kind of goes with the territory.

Even if cameras had been allowed in the courtroom I doubt the photographs appearing in newspapers would be representative. One would hardly be able to draw anything like an "all the time" kind of conclusion from them. There do seem to be quite a few stories about her smiling and laughing as she entered court though. What one can deduce from that I'm not desperately interested to know.

In my own skirmish with the law, I forced a smile and greeted the prosecutor as if I enjoyed his company. All the while I was thinking that I would like to strangle the SOB! I have never done that before, to that extent. I have never smiled and shook the hand of my mortal enemy before or after.

My lawyers told me not to be unlikable, not to seem mean.

So what does Amanda's smile mean? It has to be understood in the context of the legal system.

 

[shuttlt]

Shuttit, you seem like a decent guy. You must realise by now that the prosecution case is full of holes. The two leaders of the extremist guilter site have just run off. The tide of history is turning, my friend, and I would like you to be on our side. What do you say?

I don't think one can make judgements about the case, or whose arguments are better, by the ebb and flow of people on this thread. My impression was that most of the pre-existing JREF members who came to the thread at the start erred on the side of guilt. Equally we were all younger and less information had come to light. Most of them seemed to me to have left feeling that the thread was frustrating and unresolvable.

 

[shuttlt]

So what does Amanda's smile mean?

Don't know. Don't particularly care.

 

[Withnail1969]

I don't think one can make judgements about the case, or whose arguments are better, by the ebb and flow of people on this thread. My impression was that most of the pre-existing JREF members who came to the thread at the start erred on the side of guilt. Equally we were all younger and less information had come to light. Most of them seemed to me to have left feeling that the thread was frustrating and unresolvable.

I understand you don't want to commit to anything right now.

Would it be OK, with your permission, to speak to you in a week's time about these issues?

 

[shuttlt]

That reminds me of the old prosecutor joke: "We can convict anybody, the innocent just take longer".

I would go further and say that the longer the case is in court, the more likely it is that the defendant is innocent. The trouble is, an innocent defendant that is poor and under-represented is, likely to be convicted quickly and never get out.

What's your feeling on OJ? His case went on forever.

The ONLY generalization that characterizes the innocent is, perhaps, that the legal proceedings go on for years.

I was going to say that an airtight alibi characterizes the innocent too, but look at the Godfather - he was in church at a christening when the executions he ordered took place.

Anybody without an alibi can be found guilty. A few of those with alibis can also be found guilty.

Others who know more about the Italian legal system than me have said that it is slow as anything. In any case, with a long case the problem is, I think, that one becomes overloaded with too much data. Rather like the 'proof' that all numbers are divisible by two, guilt or innocence starts to depend on the order in which you examine the data.

 

[shuttlt]

I understand you don't want to commit to anything right now.

Would it be OK, with your permission, to speak to you in a week's time about these issues?

What is happening in a weeks time?

 

[Supernaut]

Well, this is the JREF, so pedantry kind of goes with the territory.

Yes, pedantry being integral to the sophist's technique, as you immediately demonstrated with the follwing;

Even if cameras had been allowed in the courtroom I doubt the photographs appearing in newspapers would be representative. One would hardly be able to draw anything like an "all the time" kind of conclusion from them. There do seem to be quite a few stories about her smiling and laughing as she entered court though. What one can deduce from that I'm not desperately interested to know.

This is the post you originally responded to;

I notice that someone here is parrotting the "Amanda was always laughing and smiling while testifying" PMF blather, as they were doing some months back.

I thought I had straightened this individual out on the issue, but apparently not.

The media were not present in the courtroom during the trial proceedings, hence the ONLY publically available visual records are grainy "cam" footage obtained from the security monitors outside the courtroom.

For obvious reasons, the press, partilcularly the gutter variety, are only interested in "compelling", clear, full-colour images, so grabs from the "cam" footage have hardly even been used.

The question this raises is; are there really people so attached to their "beliefs" that absolutely nothing will disabuse them? Are they really so pathologically self-deceiving? Or is it simply the case that they are ..... liars?

Read it again. How does Miss PMFer know that "Amanda was always laughing and smiling while testifying"?

 

[capealadin]

Yes, pedantry being integral to the sophist's technique, as you immediately demonstrated with the follwing;





This is the post you originally responded to;




Read it again. How does Miss PMFer know that "Amanda was always laughing and smiling while testifying"?

Probably quoting from Barbie, who was at the trial every day. so, who are you gonna believe, her, or your lying eyes?

 

[shuttlt]

Shuttlt,

I don’t disagree with the basic premise that proof of innocence has yet surfaced in this case, but I still think that your analysis is flawed. I posted on the Duke lacrosse case as a specific response to a question from another commenter, but I still think that the examples are relevant. First, they show that a seemingly strong case can really be a house of cards.

I don't disagree with this. All it takes is an alibi, or that mobsters brother's DNA, or some other thing to turn up, or change and the whole thing could come tumbling down.

Second, they show that the media can have a harmful effect on a case.

I agree with this also. But, I'd expect this harmful effect to be largely independent of the underlying guilt or innocence or the defendent. It's still clearly an issue though.

Third and perhaps most importantly, these cases show that police and prosecutors often fight tooth-and-nail for a convictions that are clearly flawed.

Perhaps they do, but these cases do not prove it. They are a miniscule and unrepresentative subset of the cases over which you are making broad generalizations.

Being innocent is nice, but it is not enough to get one out of prison in a timely manner. Two of the Norfolk Four apparently had unimpeachable alibis, yet after twelve years all they have is a conditional pardon and sex-offender status.

Other than introducing things into the realm of the possible, I don't see the relevance.

No one is proposing doing anything close to releasing people who might be the victims of a miscarriage of justice (your question is unserious). However, you do not discuss another scenario, one that I think is quite likely. The evidence against Knox and Sollecito was not (IMHO) enough to get near reasonable doubt, yet they were convicted. That is an injustice, even if no proof of innocence is ever forthcoming.

There are always going to be disagreements about reasonable doubt and where a particular set of evidence sits in relation to it. Perhaps the judge at the appeal will agree with your take.

 

[Justinian2]

What's your feeling on OJ? His case went on forever.

Others who know more about the Italian legal system than me have said that it is slow as anything. In any case, with a long case the problem is, I think, that one becomes overloaded with too much data. Rather like the 'proof' that all numbers are divisible by two, guilt or innocence starts to depend on the order in which you examine the data.

OJ? I thought he was guilty from the beginning, so I only paid slight attention. The differences are that OJ had motive and OJ did not have another that was convicted of the crime (like Guede).

Another difference is that was before my own skirmish with the law and my police brutality site. Consequently, I still thought that the legal system was pretty good at the time of the OJ trial.

Although the OJ case retrospectively looks much stronger than the case against AK and RS, the evidence against OJ wasn't totally convincing and the LAPD was guilty of some really bad things around that time. But I didn't follow the OJ case; I am far from knowledgeable on the OJ case.

 

[Supernaut]

Probably quoting from Barbie, who was at the trial every day. so, who are you gonna believe, her, or your lying eyes?

I wouldn't trust Barbie Nadeau any further than I could throw her.

Can't quite decipher the rest of your post.

 

[shuttlt]

Yes, pedantry being integral to the sophist's technique, as you immediately demonstrated with the follwing;
...
This is the post you originally responded to;
...
Read it again. How does Miss PMFer know that "Amanda was always laughing and smiling while testifying"?

When I said:

One would hardly be able to draw anything like an "all the time" kind of conclusion from them.

I was agreeing with you. Any suggestion of laughing and smiling "all the time" is clearly nonsense. She smiled and laughed some of the time that she was in court and perhaps a few times while testifying. None of us were there to witness it. Some journalists, lawyers, members of the public etc... were there and we may take or leave their impressions as we please.